30 June 2011 1:31 PM

A New Challenge on Drugs

I just want to give notice here that I shall shortly (early next week, I hope) be responding to a challenge from Tim Wilkinson who, on his blog ‘Surely Some Mistake’ has set out his reasons for opposing my call for the proper enforcement of penal laws against the possession of drugs, notably cannabis. I think anyone with a search engine can find their way there, and it would be useful if readers here were familiar with the arguments which Mr Wilkinson has put, before I get started.

This debate, by the way, is by arrangement. We have a friend in common who suggested that we should discuss this matter. Mr Wilkinson is of course welcome to post replies here as well as on his own site. I shall post my arguments here, and nowhere else.

I am now in the early stages of wriitng my planned next book ‘The War We Never Fought’, which examines the secret surrender of the British establishment to the cannabis lobby in the late 1960s, and the results of this surrender. So I am particularly looking forward to this exchange.

Let us see if we can keep the Atheist Bores from turning it into a linguistic battle over the difference between ‘not believing in God’ and ‘believing there is no God’. I am pleased to see that so far they haven’t hijacked the discussion on World War two, but I’m not sure this can last much longer.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Peter Hitchens, you are either extremely confused, or a first rate hypocrite. In your book, The Abolition of Liberty, you write:

"There must surely be many more, from both traditions, who believe that freedom is our most precious possession, and that no arguments of necessity should be allowed to destroy it"

Yet you continually propose that it is necessary to remove the freedom of a large number of adults, in order to achieve what you believe to be desirable, namely the suppression of various substances you consider to be undesirable.

Either you are an extremely confused defender of liberty, who has lost his way in the face of what you do not understand and therefore fear, or you are in fact, a closet authoritarian, who would happily deny millions their liberty, and establish an egregious police state, in order to promote your conception of a moral society.

In the hope that this will add to Peter Hitchens' peace of mind, I'd like to state unequivocally that I've found the discussion on the 2nd World War extremely interesting - and that I, at least, have absolutely no intention of introducing "God" into it, provided of course that nobody else does.

In the hope that this will add to Peter Hitchens' peace of mind, I'd like to state unequivocally that I've found the discussion on the 2nd World War extremely interesting - and that I, at least, have absolutely no intention of introducing "God" into it, provided of course that nobody else does.

"Let us see if we can keep the Atheist Bores from turning it into a linguistic battle over the difference between ‘not believing in God’ and ‘believing there is no God’" - Peter Hitchens.
- Does anyone know what this means? I can't see any difference between the two phrases.

‘No doubt the Michael Age and Hitchens loathe him, however, on account of his "selfish and morally depraved" atheism. Actually, come to think of it he was somewhat troublesome to his po-faced father, but as I say, I am fond of his poetry. ‘

Posted by: Wesley Crosland | 05 July 2011 at 05:38 PM

I have my own thoughts on Shelley – he WAS selfish and depraved, but that is fact, nothing to do with philosophy – he was destructive of the people in his life - but he was no Atheist despite what he pretended. That was the yawno radical stance of the time like it is now, plus ca change. He is like those shallow, narcissistic people who the silly young multitude project so much depth onto – like those clowns Dean and Brando. Dean messed up others lives as well as his own, Brando had an abortionist on retainer. Their ‘sensitivity’ as projected by people ONTO them in their films was really narcissism.

I, much like Hitchens, do not like to carry on the old posts, mainly due to the rather poor way this site operates, which makes debate very tedious on here, but that is little excuse - I should not leave a debate hanging like that

In fairness, my point was not that our host left, as I did, he always does that and I have no issue because of said reasons, but when we were given a response we got a lecture about the use of 'train station'

Funny you should say that as there are one or two responses awaiting you on the Excuse Industry thread regarding atheist wars. It would have been interesting to have read your reply...

I feel your comment is unfair to Mr Hitchens, he usually replies to the majority of comments that have been aimed at him, at least from my observation. It's a shame that this trait isn't shared by others, mostly those who accuse him of not answering their point in the first place...

"Michael Age", um, yes, I was quoting Shelley. "This dim vast vale of tears", from his 'Hymn to Intellectual Beauty". I do not know any other source for this phrase, only Shelley's poetry, which affords me great solace.

No doubt the Michael Age and Hitchens loathe him, however, on account of his "selfish and morally depraved" atheism. Actually, come to think of it he was somewhat troublesome to his po-faced father, but as I say, I am fond of his poetry.

"So the question is why do you believe these stories ?. It held water until we become aware of the sea of Gallilee's dimensions. Then it becomes just plain silly."

Sorry, sir. I must have missed something - though I had to read your contribution more than once in order to work out what you were driving at.
Do you mean to suggest that it was the dimensions of the Sea of Galilee which made the miracle unbelievable? I may be a little slow on the uptake, as they say, but I don't see the connection. Perhaps you would so kind as to clarify the connection between a miraculous happening and the dimensions of the location in which it happened.
Do you further suggest, sir, that meteorological conditions which might obtain on Windermere must be supposed to obtain also with the same degree of severity at all latitudes?

"And did those feet in ancient time.
Walk upon England's mountains green:"

asks William Blake (1757 - 1827).

Well, I suppose, if they had, they might also have walked upon Windermere's waters.

You ask "why do you believe these stories?". Well, how is any answer to that question not going to be open to a charge of rationalising? I do indeed believe that that miracle happened and presumably you don't, sir, but, if asked either why I believe or why you don't - if indeed you don't - how are we really to know?
If we attempted to answer, might we not both equally be dressing up our preferences in specious language?

I note that Hitchens never actually answered my point, or anyone else's, that if he doesn't wish to listen to the atheist bores he shouldn't keep bringing it up, a phrase regarding sharp sticks and bears comes to mind

I hardly see anything being 'hijacked' - and the strawman at the end was golden - 'at least they haven't hijacked X yet', indeed...

Miracles
One thing bothers me.I'll ask a question of all theists out there in the blogsphere.
The Miracle of Jesus walking on water.
Ther reason I ask is this all happened so they say in a storm on the sea of Gallilee so bad the fishermen feared for their lives. All fine and dandy, but we all now know the sea in question is just a lake. A bit like Windemere. Now fearful storms on Windemere are frequent. wipping up waves all of three feet, or for those younger posting here , almost a metre.
What type of fishermen are we talking of here. Obviously not the spinach eating variety
So the question is why do you believe these stories ?. It held water until we become aware of the sea of Gallilee's dimensions. Then it becomes just plain silly.

Well, Hitchens should remember that he has taken a pop at atheists again of late. Otherwise, I would like to remind him that I proposed a moratorium on the argument between believers and unbelievers.

But next time this argument arises, I hope that Peter Hitchens will not traduce and misrepresent atheists, as he has done. Though I am glad that Jehovah does not exist (why on earth doesn't Hitchens, an ardent foe of tyranny - though not as ardent as his brother, I might add - share this view?!) I occasionally yearn for the existence of an all-loving God, and so my atheism does not spring from a desire that there should be no such Supreme Being. It simply comes from my reasoning, and my contemplation of this vast vale of tears

Mike Barnes, I agree that we should try not to resort to mud-slinging. That said, Mr. Williamson attacked me (verbally) while apparently unprovoked, so I'm going to persist until he tells me why.

On another note, responding to A Bore (that's a fitting name, how odd), the idea of a thread set aside for atheist and theist bores alike who want to slog it out over the perennial religious debate is a sensible one, though we bores tend to gravitate towards certain threads anyway.

Of course, we can hardly be expected to stay away from other threads if Mr. Hitchens casually lobs one of his ludicrous assertions about atheists into an article. Not that he tends to listen to our arguments.

Of course I could do this. But I very much prefer to persuade people to follow reasonable rules. as i've said before, such measures are the result of people repeatedly refusing to heed pleas to restrain themselves. This weblog is Burkeian. Men forge their own chains if they want to , but they are urged to be wise instead.

‘The Michael Age - you are ready to believe in miracles. I'm not. - I look for the explanation in this natural world. Not in the supernatural. That's the difference.
And do you really believe that the bible (I mean the NT) is a true, factual recording of the happenings two thousand years ago? Sorry, I don't. - That's another difference.
But in spite of our differences, I enjoy blogging with you!’
Posted by: D.Bunker | 03 July 2011 at 03:21 PM

Many thanks for the compliment, Dee! I certainly am ready to believe in miracles, but I would say that the boundary between natural and supernatural is fluid. Even after all this, I still would describe myself as agnostic but also thoroughly aware of the Fortean nature of ‘reality’.

But yes, there are times, places and people (Padre Pio, mentioned earlier, and our own home-grown Dorothy Kerin) where there is a seamless blending of the miraculous and the mundane.

But LOOKING for the miraculous is a different matter, and one cannot avoid pain.

At best I would say I know I don’t know ; where you might say-‘ you are ready to believe in miracles. I'm not. - I look for the explanation in this natural world. Not in the supernatural. That's the difference’, I would say that what we call the natural world and the supernatural world coexist and one can step from one into the other, often without realising till later.

There are so many testimonies of miraculous events in peoples’ lives, not necessarily religious at all, that I for one tend to accept them unless I have good reason to suppose otherwise – if you keep an open mind and are a good listener, you can win people’s confidence and they can confide to you things they would not do to others. That is very moving and makes one feel honoured when it happens and one takes them on trust.

Just don't puublish the comments of Atheist Bores in such threads. No need to "censor" them, mind: they can have their say in appropriate threads, and they hold forth so often it's not as if they are being denied their opportunity to engage the debate.

If it comes to it, you can even set-aside threads as ghettos for them to pontificate in. Perhaps if you do that they won't feel the need to hijack every other discussion for their own pet purpose.

I might be wrong - they might be so narcissistic that this would not be good enough for them, and they'd shake their rattles and throw constant tantrums about being censored. But we can always hope.

Prisons must be made drug-free. The present situation whereby drugs are readily available in prisons is both absurd and disgraceful.

Methadone "treatment" on the NHS should also stop. I simply do not believe it is necessary.

Any offence of theft or deception should be deemed aggravated (not mitigated) if the main purpose was to obtain money to buy drugs (or drugs directly). An initial conviction should normally carry a prison sentence of at least six months.

No-one sent to prison for 6 months would be released until they had passed a test to show they were clear of drugs.

I would de-criminalise most drugs for those adults who were willing and able to pay for them. Dealers would be licensed and the drugs would be taxed. There would be heavy penalties for supplying minors; and compulsory treatment for consuming as a minor.

I am especially concerned about the risk cannabis may pose to young people. This area needs urgent research. If an age limit higher than 18 is warranted, so be it.

There would be heavy advertising on the real dangers of drugs.

In general, I take a libertarian view regarding adults provided that they can afford to pay for their habit and not sponge off the rest of us. Unless they are lucky enough to have a private income, that means that drug-users must remain fit enough to be able to work and earn a living.

I think JW and Mr Williamson are close to coming to internet blows also.
As a man that knows of such things I suggest dandilion fluffs at ten paces. For goodness sake .We are all going down the same drain unless we plug it. I get plenty of snide comment .Water of a ducks back .Well yes and no ,mud thrown does stick and hurt.
But on this blog one must appear to be above mud slinging. I mean this is Peter Hitchens Blog. Leave that to blogs of Trots and their fellow travellers

TMA 10 58 am today .
What can we discern about Dan Brown and Saint John of the Cross. Well on the most part both are writers of fiction. And the former filthy rich because people bought his writings, and made films of them.
So Browns agent was smart.
You see the thing is you and the Bunk to and fro. in a meaningless game of tennis . On playing Wimbledon rules the other ,Original tennis. So it goes on and on .like an indeterminal duce game.
You believe in something, the Bunk does not .I fear for the sanity of both of you.

Your suggestion that Mr Hitchens attend a 12-Step meeting is actually quite a good one. And I would like to suggest that both of you read 'Saints run mad' by Marjorie Harrison, a critique of the Oxford Group meetings (the Oxford Group been the precursor to the various 12 step organisations) and both of you will get a flavour of what they really are about. Also worth while is investigating the OG's founder, Dr Frank Buchman.

Hello Dermot – many thanks for your encouraging and wise words – I fully appreciate what you are saying and will read with an open mind!

Given the multi-layered nature of the work, it might be best to approach it as an externally inspired unity with a numinous arc. Of course, being the KJV, there is the literary dimension as well – there is that famous description of it being ‘the only great work of Art created by a committee.’

I also came across a marvellous description from George Bernard Shaw, all the better as the endorsement is coming from a not at all obvious quarter:

"The translation was extraordinarily well done because to the translators what they were translating was not merely a curious collection of ancient books written by different authors in different stages of culture, but the word of God divinely revealed through His chosen and expressly inspired scribes. In this conviction they carried out their work with boundless reverence and care and achieved a beautifully artistic result...they made a translation so magnificent that to this day the common human Britisher or citizen of the United States of North America accepts and worships it as a single book by a single author, the book being the Book of Books and the author being God."

I always knew GBS was alright really – after all, he wrote the best book to a musical ever ( ‘My Fair Lady’ (!) ) and there is a delightful story of him really believing in an afterlife, telling his servant Mrs. Laden that he would let her know after his passing, and doing so in the most avuncular manner (can be read up in ‘Ghosts: Spooky Stories and Eerie Encounters from the National Trust ‘)

Re:

‘The Michael Age - you say that perfectly sensible people took the Da Vinci code seriously - on the basis of a simple claim that it was "fact". Does this surprise anyone?

Millions of people take the teachings of Catholic Church seriously - for the very same reason.’

Posted by: D. Bunker | 02 July 2011 at 08:05 AM

Miracles are not supposed to count, Faith is – however, vulgar as looking for miraculous proof is, there have been thousands of recorded miraculous instances in the Catholic countries (Padre Pio emanated an entire canon himself alone back in the last century), not so many in the Protestant lands and none at all as far as I know attributable to the works of Dan Brown.

I don’t want to judge too harshly, but it strikes me that there IS a difference discernible between the writings of such as St John of the Cross and those of the Venerable Dan Brown.

Something tells me you have a fair idea anyway, but you have to bear in mind that the Bible (library) is not a really a book, but a collection of books, with some 66 authors who (apart from a few), didn't know each other, lived in different times, and had no idea that they would all be in the same "book" one day. Good luck anyway, because I haven't managed it.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.